P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTER HUSSAIN, F. C.‑It has been argued on behalf of the Tonga Drivers Union, Sialkot, that the grant of permit for local Bus Service from Sialkot Railway Station to Sialkot Cantonment bad adversely affected their source of livelihood. In this age of mechanisation the argument of the Union has no force. The learned counsel for the District Transport Co‑operative Society Ltd., Lahore, has argued that in this case according to the notice issued by the Regional Transport Authority on 5th October 1951, applications for Stage Carriage permits for local Bus Service in Sialkot on temporary basis were invited. The last date for the receipt of such applications war 31st October 1951. It was noted that the applications received after that date would not be entertained. The appel lants Society made their application within time while the respondents made their application on 13th November 1951. The Authority without assigning any reason ignored the application of the appellant's Society and granted tyro permits for local Bus Service to the respondents the Jammu‑Kashmir Transport Association Ltd., Sialkot. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that as laid down in section 62 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act no formalities were required to be observed by the Authority for granting temporary permits. It is, however, interesting to note that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority in his letter No. 3102/PT‑51, dated the 2nd November 1951, to the Adm. Comdt. Station Quarters, Sialkot, intimated that the applications received for the issue of permits would be got published for inviting objections and after one month of the applications, these would be placed before the Authority for disposal. This shows that the Authority had a mind to issue permanent permits in this case, but they seem to have subse quently changed their mind. The case does not appear to have been properly dealt with by the Regional Transport Authority. The Secretary has told me that the temporary permits were issued to meet the immediate need of the military temporary camps. The file does not show this fact. After giving my best consideration to this case, I consider that it would be in fairness to both the parties, if each of the two companies were to be allowed to have one temporary permit each. In accepting the appeal of the appellants, I order accordingly. This would mean cancellation of one permit from the respondent with grant to the appellant companies. If it is required to issue any permit for a longer period, action should be taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Announced. A.H. Appeal accepted.